Reports: Pat Robertson to endorse Giuliani; Update: Video added

posted at 9:02 am on November 7, 2007 by Bryan

Pat Robertson, one of the most influential figures in the social conservative movement, will announce his support for Rudy Giuliani’s presidential bid this morning in Washington, D.C., according to sources familiar with the decision.

Robertson’s support was coveted by several of the leading Republican candidates and provides Giuliani with a major boost as the former New York City mayor seeks to convince social conservatives that, despite his positions on abortion and gay rights, he is an acceptable choice as the GOP nominee.

It also slows any momentum for Mitt Romney within the social conservative movement. Romney had recently secured the backing of conservative stalwarts Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III — endorsements that seemed to strengthen his bid to become the electable conservative alternative to Giuliani. Romney had made no secret of his desire for Robertson’s endorsement and has to be disappointed this morning.

Giuliani has struggled to win support of social conservatives because of his moderate views on abortion and gay rights. But now he has one of the most resonant imprimaturs with Christian voters.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), meanwhile, plans to announce his surprise endorsement of former Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president on Wednesday, a campaign official told Politico.

The endorsement is to be announced in Dubuque, Iowa.

The alliance gives McCain — once a front-runner, now struggling — a crucial bridge to social conservatives, an important constituency that has remained suspicious of him despite his opposition to abortion.

If anything, the Robertson endorsement is more significant than the Weyrich endorsement that the Romney camp won earlier in the week. Both endorsements strike me as wiser than the threat to either sit home or support a third party bid if Giuliani is the nominee. I’ve written of my ambivalence about Giuliani, but the prospect of religious conservatives handing the Democrats victory next year by sabotaging the GOP nominee ought not be on the table. Robertson and Weyrich get that, even if they arrive at different places when it comes to endorsing a candidate.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

And there are apparently enough Democratic voters that Rudy became the first Republican elected to two terms since Fiorello H. LaGuardia.

I remain not understanding why it’d be a surprise that 80% of the judges he’d nominate were Dems. Nominating Conservative Republicans would’ve been like Bush appointing Alito or Roberts with a Democratic-led Congress with the majority controlling 2/3 of seats.

Why do we have these ridiculous local elections when we vote on judges that no one has any clue about?

thuja on November 7, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Because that’s the way American politics work. On balance, I’d rather see a local judge elected by 10% of the electorate with no clue about the candidates than some public official appointing cronies to those positions as part of a political machine.

They are never able to articulate why Rudy is so bad either…All this is a long way of asking what issues would actually split the GOP as you keep claiming. I’m just not seeing the issue(s) that would do so if one strips away the hysteria and emotion.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 3:02 PM

“Either”?? I’ve articulated it all rather well multiple times. I’ve enumerated the major issues Giuliani is on the wrong side of, as well. Others have too. Apparently, you missed it.

Therefore, why should Rudy’s stance on gun control disqualify him?

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Because it’s not just his stance on gun control. It’s illegal immigration, gun control, abortion, family values, shady business dealings, etc ad nauseum. The only issue that he’s got right is that he knows a terrorist when he sees one. Great. But he’s hardly the only one.

He’s being shoved down our throats like he’s the Republican messiah, and yet he does NOT represent the majority of the party.

Reagan, as strong a Conservative and as popular a President as he was, supported several instances of gun control, including a very strong gun control measure in California. Therefore, why should Rudy’s stance on gun control disqualify him?

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 3:36 PM

I’m not sure what Reagan passed could be called “very strong” gun control- the act was aimed at the Black Panthers, who had a habit of openly carrying loaded guns; before the act it was legal to do so without a permit (so long as the chamber was empty).

Rudy actively teamed with the Brady Foundation, a rabidly anti-gun group. He advocated strict, nationwide government control over who would be allowed to own a handgun, including having to show a “need” for a gun to be able to own one. He tried to sue gunmakers out of existance even though he acknowledged they hadn’t broken any law; he claimed that they were producing 7-8 times more guns than they should. He approved of what was effectively a ban on handgun ownership by otherwise law abiding citizens as being anti-crime, even though gun bans have been shown time and again not to reduce crime.

Rudy went far, far beyond anything Reagan did; whatever his campaign rhetoric is now, his record is one of being an enemy of the 2nd Amendment and gun owners not just in NYC but nationwide.

Let’s see now…you are endorsing McCain who brought us McCain-Feingold, screwed up our ability to get judges confirmed with a simple majority, opposed the Bush Tax Cuts, and was weak on immigration as witnessed by the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill which suffered a resounding defeat.

On the plus side he was a genuine war hero and he is pro-life.

For some reason Rudy gets relentlessly pounded, particularly on immigration, while McCain gets silly rah rah rah campaign songs written about him. I’m beginning to think that all your squawking about Rudy and immigration was just a lot of smoke.

Highhopes, I’ve gotta go too. If you want to know more about where Giuliani has gone wrong on almost every major issue, please read The Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani. It’s a short, easy read with plenty of alarming quotes from Giuliani himself that ought to raise red flags for any Republican.

Then read this about his questionable business dealings. I’m not too happy that he’s in bed with Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, to start. But I’m also not too happy that he gets scads of free and favorable press from Fox News, when they are one of his clients. It’s a conflict of interest that explains a helluva lot about why Fox News is pushing Giuliani so hard. Follow the money.

And this is before a lot of people have even found out about all of Rudy’s big negatives. They already know about the HildaBeast™ big negatives.
Anyone who thinks that this thing is looking good for Republicans is either on drugs or if not they should be.

I see your point now. And I do agree there are different circumstances. However, I do not believe that any state, county, or city government has the right to prohibit gun ownership. I think you and I agree on that much.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Children, the insane or felons could be prohibited from owning a gun, but not a competent, non-felon adult.

Rudy does better against Clinton in Texas by double digits.
Fred squeaks by with just a few point lead.
Mitt looses Texas to the Hildabeast!!!

I thought Texas was in the South that could never support a New Yawker.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Fred has a “few” point lead? Try 6 points. There’s only a 5 point difference between Rudy and Fred- a difference that will likely go away when more Texans learn about Rudy’s anti-gun and pro-illegal alien record.

Until 1995, New York had Democratic governors for over 20 years solid. Giuliani won in 1993.

That would be mayors. Rudy was mayor of New York City but never governor of the state. Before Rudy, the last Republican mayor was John Lindsay, though technically one could count Ed Koch who won as both a Democrat and Republican in 1981. Lindsay was more liberal than Rudy, and happened to defeat William F. Buckley (and Abe Beame) to gain office. In the campaign Buckley was asked what he’d do if he won. He famously replied “demand a recount”.

If you compare the Rudy to Koch, Bloomy, and Lindsay he passes as conservative–at least on the island of Manhattan.

No, that is Fred who gets silly rah rah rah campaign songs written about him.
You are becoming a total train wreak.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Really, then what is this? A “serious” campaign song?

I see John McCain arising.
I see things may be going his way.
I see rumbling and hear noises.
I see better times for him today.

Chorus:
Dont go around writing off McCain,
Well, its bound to take your prognosticating life,
John McCain is on the rise.
- CCR

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 1:59 PM

Granted, I don’t know what “CCR” stands for, but you published it so it’s all yours.

Not to mention this prior endorsement:

This makes a whole lot more sense. Question for the Rudy backers, including Robertson – if you are cool with amnesty and want somebody who is strong on the war, why don’t you support McCain?
McCain has some of the same weaknesses as Sanctuary City Mayor Giuliani, but he also has strengths which loud mouth pussy Giuliani does not even begin to have. For example, he is a genuine war hero, not a sniffling draft dodger. He believes in clean government, not government by crony corruption. And he is a lot more likely to nominate good judges than Rudy is.
MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 1:29 PM

That was not an endorsement of McCain you silly buffoon. My indicating that McCain would be a better choice for Rudolfo backers than Rudolfo would be is hardly an endorsement of McCain. In case you have not noticed, I am not exactly a big Rudolfo fan, hello!, so my putting McCain ahead of him, for Rudolfo backers, is certainly not an endorsement of him. You have learned to stalk, tap, tap, tap, and cut and paste, now you need to try to understand what you read. This is getting very old, my having to explain things to you, over and over and over and over and over again. Are you a masochist?

LOL… I own my own company… so no… pretty much you can say anything as long as you don’t get punched out for it…

Key point here is that STATES do NOT have the right or ability to trump the US Constitution.

Romeo13 on November 7, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Read the laws concerning speech that causes a hostile work environment. I think they put limits on certain types of speech even in your company. So even if someone didn’t get punched out for it, if you heard them saying anything that falls under those mandates, you as the employer are obligated to do something about it whether you agreed with it or not.

And you’re right, states can’t trump the Constitution as far as gun ownership is concerned. That was my point all along. Concealed carry laws and the like however, are in the hands of the states, and different circumstances call for different laws concerning something like that.

Um… already read those laws… and as Colorado is a Right to Work State, everyone who works for me signs an agreement stipulating that my comapany IS an offensive environment (even though its not) and if they are offended, then they can quit, but not sue. Its a requirement for employment… just like the security and non disclosure agreements we all sign…

Will it hold up in court? don’t know… but by signing it they acknowledge the warning…

Your observations of what is going on are awfully gleeful for an objective observer. Granted he’s not your first choice but you must admit you are just a wee bit heartened at the thought fantasy that he might beat Rudy.

You are effectively cheering on the guy who co-authored the Kennedy-McCain Shamnesty bill. Imagine that!

Considering Fred’s pilot buddy/donor was a drug courier in the 70′s and 80′s it is more likely that they have something on him and in turn ammo against Fred. You remember the Clinton-drug mafia right? I can see the ad now:
cue in Nancy Reagan and a clip from the Just Say No campaign. Overdub with dark sounding voice “While Ronald Reagan supported the war on drugs Fred Thompson’s driver was flying them to our high schools. Fred Thompson… the next Reagan? Just Say NO!”

Um… already read those laws… and as Colorado is a Right to Work State, everyone who works for me signs an agreement stipulating that my comapany IS an offensive environment (even though its not) and if they are offended, then they can quit, but not sue. Its a requirement for employment… just like the security and non disclosure agreements we all sign…

Will it hold up in court? don’t know… but by signing it they acknowledge the warning…

Romeo13 on November 7, 2007 at 10:32 PM

The first sexual harassment suit will torch that little agreement. You know it just as well as I do. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be able to run your company as you see fit. You should. But the government has placed restrictions on certain types of speech that will hold up in court against you should it ever come to that. I hope it doesn’t. I wish you much success.

On one side this is reason enough to NOT vote for Rudy. Pat was/is just to fringatic for me, a supporter of a different kind of nanny/sharia state.

On the other side it is reason to vote for Rudy. Obvious real politik that is unfortunately what it is going to take to win. Good on him and a chance to see if his teflon coating is up to the task. Once again the Republicans are going to take the Democrats to school on the how to’s of real politik, gosh no wonder the dems are so crazy to get beaten at “their” own game…the reverse spin and twist on the use of real politik by Rudy is BRILLIANT IMHO.

The polarization of the electorate with Pat’s support of Rudy that might have taken place in the past is just that, a thing of the past. Pat’s and his ilk’s days are numbered, THANK GOD, so this is nothing but a signal of weakness and an attempt to reclaim relevance and power.

cue in Nancy Reagan and a clip from the Just Say No campaign. Overdub with dark sounding voice “While Ronald Reagan supported the war on drugs Fred Thompson’s driver was flying them to our high schools. Fred Thompson… the next Reagan? Just Say NO!”

Bradky on November 8, 2007 at 7:28 AM

You’re being absurd. The charges were what- 25 years ago? If anyone has issues with friends having legal trouble, it’s Rudy.

They both made mistakes about the people that they surrounded themselves with. It is inevitable given a lifetime in public life. However, there is a difference. Kerik, for his fault, also contributed to the successful turn around of NYC. Also, Kerick is more of a taker from Rudy than a giver. By that I mean, Kerick gained more from the relationship with Rudy than vie versa. Whereas Fred surrounded himself with a drug dealer as a fund raiser and accepted the use of his private jet. Now that the truth has come to light in both situations, you have a scumbag that owes something to Rudy, whereas Fred owes a favor to a scumbag drug dealer. The favors run in the opposite directions, meaning that Fred is more likely to be influenced by the favor that he owes to a drug dealer, than Rudy is likely to be influence by essentially the betrayal of the trust Rudy had in Kerik.

The favors run in the opposite directions, meaning that Fred is more likely to be influenced by the favor that he owes to a drug dealer, than Rudy is likely to be influence by essentially the betrayal of the trust Rudy had in Kerik.

tommylotto on November 8, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Not one of your better attempts at spin.

Let’s see- one was convicted of drug charges 25 years ago, one was convicted once last year for corruption and is currently facing indictment on another charge.

Kerik was an unqualified crony appointment by Rudy, who promoted him from being his personal driver to police commissioner. Kerik’s corruption happened on Rudy’s watch, not decades earlier.

Giuliani, who as mayor fought for gun control, said he supports the Second Amendment as giving people “the individual right to bear arms” and would appoint judges who believe that.

State and local governments do have the right to place restrictions on gun ownership, he said, but if the restrictions are excessive, responsible judges will declare them unconstitutional.

So, I ask, what “right to place restrictions on gun ownership” does Giuliani grant State and local governments, because he just said that he will appoint judges who will make those restrictions, and leave those judges to judge themselves which leaves foxes guarding the Constitutional hen house that already suffers from judicial “common law” legislated from the bench attrition.

Kerik was an unqualified crony appointment by Rudy, who promoted him from being his personal driver to police commissioner. Kerik’s corruption happened on Rudy’s watch, not decades earlier. There is absolutely no comparison to the two situations. Hollowpoint on November 8, 2007 at 4:22 PM

It’s stuff like this about Rudy that is going to percolate to the surface over the next few months. Fred’s guy has resigned by the way.

Fred’s guy has resigned by the way.
Mojave Mark on November 11, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Which one? The terrorists? The dictator? His son?

The connection to Rudy by his guy is exactly the same as Fred’s scumbags. The MSM/Clintons are waiting for “What’s a dollar?” to get the nomination so they can start hammering on him just like they are Rudy. By then it’s too late and Hillary is the president.